SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

All things Rugby
User avatar
Marshall Banana
Posts: 12822
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:57 pm

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Marshall Banana »

naki wrote:
Marshall Banana wrote:
naki wrote:
Waka Nathan wrote:McKenzie isn't a 10's arse. Why should the Chiefs be the test lab for one of Hansen's wacky ideas?
Yep. Not much first-five cover in the squad though
Chiefs would be a million times better off with Marty at 10, Maori Jesus at 12, and D-Mac at 15.

D-Mac was the best fullback in the comp last year.
Māori Jesus is even shaped more like a block busting 12 now also, he’s piled on some pounds

Doesn’t matter, he’s now injured of course
And Marty is in Disneyland - so D-Mac pretty much has to play 10 now anyway.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20879
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Fat Old Git »

We're going to end up with Gifs and still pics aren't we.
User avatar
Toro
Posts: 6869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Madrid

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Toro »

If you watch it in real time it's a fairly decent blow straight round the neck head area, then as Crotty goes to score he bends him away from the line by binding on his neck. Not that controversial really, but with the sympathy the ref actually showed maybe the yellow with a PT shouldn't be an absolute.
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by SecretAgentMan »

UncleFB wrote:Tana was wrong, it is tiddly winks.
World Class Phil wrote:Like other posters have said, the fact that letting Crotty score instead of going to make the tackle would be less risky is literally the safer option now which makes zero sense.
Sad but true.
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by SecretAgentMan »

Fat Old Git wrote:We're going to end up with Gifs and still pics aren't we.
Hopefully not, we're not British after all.
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by JB1981 »

Fat Old Git wrote:We're going to end up with Gifs and still pics aren't we.
Surely no one will stoop to the depths of the Irish.
Waka Nathan
Posts: 2122
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:09 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Waka Nathan »

Marshall Banana wrote:D-Mac was the best fullback in the comp last year.
Just when McKenzie had reduced his horrendous error rate at fullback he gets shunted to another position--and starts doing the stupid shit all over again. There is some weird thinking going on in NZ rugby.
User avatar
mrbrownstone
Posts: 3057
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by mrbrownstone »

Chiefs didn't deserve that scoreline, but I'll take a BP win in a NZ derby game any day of the week. :thumbup: :thumbup:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by guy smiley »

Fat Old Git wrote:We're going to end up with Gifs and still pics aren't we.
I'm firing up the gif wagon as we speak :lol:

I remember contact starting high. If I got that wrong then meh... the tackle certainly ended up high. My apologies if I have it wrong.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Enzedder »

UncleFB wrote:Quite an enjoyable game until the penalty try. That tackle happens all the time without the same result. If it was any other player than glass Crotty they would have just got back up and carried on, actually I take that Glass Maori Jesus Ngatai would have stayed down too.

Tana was wrong, it is tiddly winks.
:lol: :lol: I have used that line
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by SecretAgentMan »

Anyone else get the feeling they're throwing the baby out with the bath water?
User avatar
Maniototo Man
Posts: 2239
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Well South

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Maniototo Man »

Fat Old Git wrote:We're going to end up with Gifs and still pics aren't we.

I liked this pic you posted earlier. If you tackled her on the hips your hand would immediately slide straight up to her head.

Image
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by guy smiley »

SecretAgentMan wrote:Anyone else get the feeling they're throwing the baby out with the bath water?
It's a bad pun but I think most contact sports find themselves between a rock and a hard place over this now.

Image
User avatar
RodneyRegis
Posts: 15181
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by RodneyRegis »

FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20879
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Fat Old Git »

Maniototo Man wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:We're going to end up with Gifs and still pics aren't we.

I liked this pic you posted earlier. If you tackled her on the hips your hand would immediately slide straight up to her head.

Image
It was the very first image when I googled pear-shaped. How fitting that she was wearing red while holding black weights. :D
User avatar
Toro
Posts: 6869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Madrid

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Toro »

RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
Yeah it really wasn't that controversial. Just a the stage of a tight game where a penalty try somewhat decided the game and left a bad taste in the mouth.
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by SecretAgentMan »

RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.
User avatar
Toro
Posts: 6869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Madrid

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Toro »

SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.
Maybe for the yellow but he clearly stopped him from getting the try by pulling on his neck, that's been a PT for a long time.
bimboman
Posts: 65082
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by bimboman »

Toro wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.
Maybe for the yellow but he clearly stopped him from getting the try by pulling on his neck, that's been a PT for a long time.
We have had yellows for penalties that direct try's for a while too.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Tehui »

I didn't see the match. But it sounds like the Crusaders gave them Chiefs a hiding.
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6363
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Flockwitt »

Just back from the game. That Cheifs side will cause more than a few teams some problems once they settle into their stride. Shame about Charlie. Crusaders looking friggin ominous though :|
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20879
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Fat Old Git »

Tehui wrote:I didn't see the match. But it sounds like the Crusaders gave them Chiefs a hiding.
It was much closer than the final score suggested. Went silly in the final 8 minutes including several intercept trys.
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by SecretAgentMan »

bimboman wrote:
Toro wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.
Maybe for the yellow but he clearly stopped him from getting the try by pulling on his neck, that's been a PT for a long time.
We have had yellows for penalties that direct try's for a while too.
So instead of having the players standing around scratching their heads and copping bans for doing exactly what they've been coached to do all their fecking lives, let's take this abomination to its logical conclusion and have the game played in ultra slo-mo. And restrict the players' running stride, like they do with trotters and pacers and other dumb animals. Under penalty of a red card. And let's have 6 on-field referees as well. And a video replay after every contact. And armed teachers in the classrooms. Just to be on the safe side.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by BillW »

SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.
You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.
User avatar
Andalu
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Andalu »

If I know the score and have seen the highlights, is the full game still worth a watch?
les@mooloolaba
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by les@mooloolaba »

Even though the score ran out at the end, which wasnt a reflection on the game, I am not too concerned about the Chiefs. I never expected them to make the finals this year, especially loosing some good players like TKB, Cruden and Lowe. They are in a bit of a pickle now that they have some crucial injuries, but then that allows others to step up.

Cane was beast last night and has really stepped up in his role, no more in the GOATS shadow and I bet some of the Crusaders are feeling his tackles, probably got concussion from the bone rattling all the way to the cerebellum.

Disappointed with Weber, too slow with his passing from the ruck, especially in the first half and needs to look at his kicking. Would like to discuss the rules and interpretation but will leave that to another thread.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5098
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by kiwigreg369 »

les@mooloolaba wrote:Even though the score ran out at the end, which wasnt a reflection on the game, I am not too concerned about the Chiefs. I never expected them to make the finals this year, especially loosing some good players like TKB, Cruden and Lowe. They are in a bit of a pickle now that they have some crucial injuries, but then that allows others to step up.

Cane was beast last night and has really stepped up in his role, no more in the GOATS shadow and I bet some of the Crusaders are feeling his tackles, probably got concussion from the bone rattling all the way to the cerebellum.

Disappointed with Weber, too slow with his passing from the ruck, especially in the first half and needs to look at his kicking. Would like to discuss the rules and interpretation but will leave that to another thread.
Les - sort of agree.
On senior players - yes, that's going to hurt.
Cane - agree, and good captaincy
Weber - not sure, first game - jury out...
Finals - i think they are in for a reasonable shout as 7 or 8th - in part because the AU & SA conferences will be very even as well so i expect a close race for QFs and the Chiefs have traditionally scored bonus points.

And then lets talk about:
- DMAC - i'm a massive fan but not sure
- Ngati (Maori Jesus) - look OK - before injury - but not sure why at 15
- ALB - good in sections
- Liam M - good game early off bench to the end

Overall OK, tough in Auckland this Friday...
KG
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Enzedder »

I was OK with it - sort of :?

I bet they (like I) would like to replay the last 15 minutes.
User avatar
maxbox
Posts: 10736
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Spiritual Guardianland

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by maxbox »

Fat Old Git wrote:
Tehui wrote:I didn't see the match. But it sounds like the Crusaders gave them Chiefs a hiding.
It was much closer than the final score suggested. Went silly in the final 8 minutes including several intercept trys.
Yeah sadly the Chiefs lost concentration after that penalty try... too much ground to cover with so little time left. Against the defending champs this was bound to happen
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 12791
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by UncleFB »

BillW wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.
This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.
You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.
Yes it did, it happened when the match was still a contest, and caused the match to no longer be a contest.

On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by guy smiley »

UncleFB wrote:
On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.
Mitigated with a YC?
User avatar
Shrekles
Posts: 4420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Shrekles »

Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 12791
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by UncleFB »

guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.
Mitigated with a YC?
The referee stated he the attacker ducked into this - without this mitigation we must presume that the Aussie prop would have been red carded (because what other option is there?) and the Chiefs would have only had to face a 14 men Crusaders team for the remainder of the game. Instead he stayed on the field and the attackers action did not enter into the discussion in the penalty try incident.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 12791
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by UncleFB »

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.
Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by guy smiley »

UncleFB wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.
Mitigated with a YC?
The referee stated he the attacker ducked into this - without this mitigation we must presume that the Aussie prop would have been red carded (because what other option is there?) and the Chiefs would have only had to face a 14 men Crusaders team for the remainder of the game. Instead he stayed on the field and the attackers action did not enter into the discussion in the penalty try incident.

You're trying to equate seperate incidents to highlight inconsistency which is neveer a good idea man... every incident has to be taken on its own merits. We know this...

in the ChCh game, both incidents for YC were ruled fairly, clearly and well in my view. I'm not sure of the Aussie prop incident you refer to... do you mean the Higgers one in the Red's game? Where he lead with the shoulder and didn't wrap the arms, causing contact to the head with his shoulder?

Clear RC, that one. Different to the 'Sadeers Chiefs game, again in my view.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 12791
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by UncleFB »

guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.
Mitigated with a YC?
The referee stated he the attacker ducked into this - without this mitigation we must presume that the Aussie prop would have been red carded (because what other option is there?) and the Chiefs would have only had to face a 14 men Crusaders team for the remainder of the game. Instead he stayed on the field and the attackers action did not enter into the discussion in the penalty try incident.

You're trying to equate seperate incidents to highlight inconsistency which is neveer a good idea man... every incident has to be taken on its own merits. We know this...

in the ChCh game, both incidents for YC were ruled fairly, clearly and well in my view. I'm not sure of the Aussie prop incident you refer to... do you mean the Higgers one in the Red's game? Where he lead with the shoulder and didn't wrap the arms, causing contact to the head with his shoulder?

Clear RC, that one. Different to the 'Sadeers Chiefs game, again in my view.
I'm talking about Alaatoa, the ref explicitly stated that the sanction was mitigated by the attackers action. It was a high swinging arm - would have been interesting if DMac stayed down like Crotty did actually. While I can fully see how a Crusaders fan would not want the same consistency applied to a potential Crusaders try I think it's bollocks that the ref ascribes mitigation to some incidents and not others.
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by SecretAgentMan »

UncleFB wrote:
Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.
Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?
I reckon Cane will get the gig.
User avatar
Shrekles
Posts: 4420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by Shrekles »

UncleFB wrote:
Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.
Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?
They ballsed up the first lineout but the Chiefs had to kick the ball back to them so they maintained field position, got another penalty which eventually resulted in the PT>
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by guy smiley »

UncleFB wrote: I'm talking about Alaatoa, the ref explicitly stated that the sanction was mitigated by the attackers action. It was a high swinging arm - would have been interesting if DMac stayed down like Crotty did actually. While I can fully see how a Crusaders fan would not want the same consistency applied to a potential Crusaders try I think it's bollocks that the ref ascribes mitigation to some incidents and not others.
ah.. ok, the dirty Aussie prop :lol: :thumbup: gotcha.

In the Crotty incident, you can hear him telling Cane that if it weren't for the fact it was in the actof scoring and stopped that happening it would have been penalty only but the act of scoring meant it had to go penalty try / YC.

So... can you see why I am saying I'm happy with both calls being fair and clear?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb

Post by guy smiley »

SecretAgentMan wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.
Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?
I reckon Cane will get the gig.
Same here and it would be a good call going by what we've seen and can expect re. longevity. Cane's got more years in him... and I'll go further and suggest he'll be captain for the next RWC.
Post Reply